Community partners are hoping to turn the abandoned school grounds into homes for teachers, hospital staff and other working professionals who have struggled to find shelter amid an ongoing shortage.
Great article! I just forwarded it to one of our newly-elected school board members in Gillette who is also a developer. We have an empty school up here too that might qualify for new housing.
I had been meaning to round up those studies for a while and drop them in one place so I'm glad I've done that now. I'd expect similar paragraphs in future stories about housing because I think it's convenient to have such easy access. I think the 2020 Housing Strategy is especially clear in laying out the *logic* of what the council has done the last few years (even employing handy graphics), and the WCDA reports from the last two years layout recommended legislative actions.
Why in this particular location? Would these units really provide workforce housing, or would they wind up as "kiddie condos" for the nearby University campus?
ISTM that if we want to build affordable, owner-occupied housing, we should do it in the county. Land is substantially cheaper there, and there's far less burdensome, costly regulation to contend with. (Developers report that city regulations and other red tape make it prohibitively expensive to develop even housing that's not labeled as "affordable" or "attainable" within the city limits.) And doing it farther from campus would prevent it from being snapped up by parents of college students at inflated prices, as has happened with so much development near campus to date.
I'm all for providing affordable housing, but revamping this particular site (with these concerns plus the extra costs of asbestos abatement, etc.) may not be the best way to do it. Let's think carefully before pursuing this.
Although the initial cost of land is cheaper in the county, the long term costs can and will be greater.
The purchaser of the rural house will end up with a slightly smaller mortgage payment, but make up for it with increased transportation costs. They will be required to own a vehicle (or several), pay for maintenance on water and septic (in some parts of the county well water is not available, so water must be hauled) and may have to pay for their own road maintenance to the nearest county route. Non-drivers in the family will have to rely on others for transportation instead of being independent. There is also the time expense of having long drives every time anything is desired outside the home.
The taxpayers (all of us) will have added costs for road maintenance, wear and tear on sheriff and ambulance vehicles, increased traffic congestion and collisions, school busing, and eventually extending city services to the (now old) new neighborhood.
For these reasons we should encourage denser infill within the city limits.
Yes, residents of the county may need to own a vehicle (though that's not absolutely true; some areas outside the city limits are accessible by bike). But folks who aspire to own a home almost certainly already own a car. And residents at the Old Slade location would have to drive to do their shopping, because there's no public transport (nor is there likely to be anytime in the foreseeable future) between there and Walmart, Safeway, Ridley's, etc. Laramie isn't that big, and land suitable for development is not far away, so the cost of gasoline to get from the county into town is far less than the increase in expenses (including taxes, insurance, higher land prices, etc.) that comes from living in Laramie. Nor would it take long to get into town.
Let's not destroy the character of our neighborhoods with incongruously dense infill development, which increases traffic congestion, collisions, parking issues (especially with the decreased offstreet parking requirements that Council has recently established) and wear and tear on streets much more than new development in the county would.
A key component of Laramie's charm and desirability as a place to live is that we are NOT urbanized, and so are delightfully free of the hassles and competition for every resource that characterize urban living. Instead, I would propose that we make development consistent with what's already there. That's better for existing residents AND for newcomers.
Thank you for reporting on this excellent news.
Great article! I just forwarded it to one of our newly-elected school board members in Gillette who is also a developer. We have an empty school up here too that might qualify for new housing.
I'd be interested to hear what they say
Excellent reporting and thank for including the links to the studies.
I had been meaning to round up those studies for a while and drop them in one place so I'm glad I've done that now. I'd expect similar paragraphs in future stories about housing because I think it's convenient to have such easy access. I think the 2020 Housing Strategy is especially clear in laying out the *logic* of what the council has done the last few years (even employing handy graphics), and the WCDA reports from the last two years layout recommended legislative actions.
Just repeal all the building codes after 1999 and you will have affordable housing.
The biggest obstacle to affordable housing is the city of laramie and the city council.
Why in this particular location? Would these units really provide workforce housing, or would they wind up as "kiddie condos" for the nearby University campus?
ISTM that if we want to build affordable, owner-occupied housing, we should do it in the county. Land is substantially cheaper there, and there's far less burdensome, costly regulation to contend with. (Developers report that city regulations and other red tape make it prohibitively expensive to develop even housing that's not labeled as "affordable" or "attainable" within the city limits.) And doing it farther from campus would prevent it from being snapped up by parents of college students at inflated prices, as has happened with so much development near campus to date.
I'm all for providing affordable housing, but revamping this particular site (with these concerns plus the extra costs of asbestos abatement, etc.) may not be the best way to do it. Let's think carefully before pursuing this.
Although the initial cost of land is cheaper in the county, the long term costs can and will be greater.
The purchaser of the rural house will end up with a slightly smaller mortgage payment, but make up for it with increased transportation costs. They will be required to own a vehicle (or several), pay for maintenance on water and septic (in some parts of the county well water is not available, so water must be hauled) and may have to pay for their own road maintenance to the nearest county route. Non-drivers in the family will have to rely on others for transportation instead of being independent. There is also the time expense of having long drives every time anything is desired outside the home.
The taxpayers (all of us) will have added costs for road maintenance, wear and tear on sheriff and ambulance vehicles, increased traffic congestion and collisions, school busing, and eventually extending city services to the (now old) new neighborhood.
For these reasons we should encourage denser infill within the city limits.
Yes, residents of the county may need to own a vehicle (though that's not absolutely true; some areas outside the city limits are accessible by bike). But folks who aspire to own a home almost certainly already own a car. And residents at the Old Slade location would have to drive to do their shopping, because there's no public transport (nor is there likely to be anytime in the foreseeable future) between there and Walmart, Safeway, Ridley's, etc. Laramie isn't that big, and land suitable for development is not far away, so the cost of gasoline to get from the county into town is far less than the increase in expenses (including taxes, insurance, higher land prices, etc.) that comes from living in Laramie. Nor would it take long to get into town.
Let's not destroy the character of our neighborhoods with incongruously dense infill development, which increases traffic congestion, collisions, parking issues (especially with the decreased offstreet parking requirements that Council has recently established) and wear and tear on streets much more than new development in the county would.
A key component of Laramie's charm and desirability as a place to live is that we are NOT urbanized, and so are delightfully free of the hassles and competition for every resource that characterize urban living. Instead, I would propose that we make development consistent with what's already there. That's better for existing residents AND for newcomers.